Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)209CTR(SC)177; [2007]290ITR419(SC); JT2007(5)SC261; 2007(5)SCALE416; (2007)5SCC353; 2007(1)LC497(SC); 2007(3)KCCRSN142.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent carries on business of arrack bottling, manufacture of industrial alcohol and their marketing. He obtained a licence from the State of Karnataka for the aforementioned purposes in terms of the provisions of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. Indisputably, the matter relating to manufacture and bottling of arrack is governed by the said Act and the rules framed thereunder by the State of Karnataka known as Karnataka Excise (Manufacturing & Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule with which we are concerned herein is Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 which reads as under:(3) Arrack after blending shall be matured in such manner and for such period as may be specified by the Commissioner from time to time.The Commissioner of Excise, however, issued a circular stating:It is hereby specified that the arrack shall be matured in wooden vats for a minimum period of 15 days before bottling the same.3. A period of 15 days, thus, had been prescrib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(1)KarLJ40
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This writ petition is by CL-2 licensees who have been permitted to carry on vending of Indian liquor in retail at their respective premises.2. Petitioners have approached this Court on the premise that the Deputy Commissioner of the District has surprised them by issuing the notice dated 13-10-2008 calling upon the petitioners to shift the location of their business to some other place within three days from the date of receipt of the notice as otherwise the authorities will be constrained to close the shops forcibly from carrying on business at the existing location.3. It is aggrieved by such notice, the present writ petition.4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners Sri B.D. Hiremath, learned Counsel would vehemently urge that the notice in per se bad in law; that it is clearly violative of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short, 'the Rules'); that the petitioners have been asked to shift the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC825; 1986(1)SCALE1099; (1986)2SCC594; [1986]2SCR409; 1986(2)LC371(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This case has made political history, but those concerned for the Rule of Law must remain unmindful and unruffled by the ripples caused by it. The legality of the action of the Government of the State of Karnataka in awarding contracts for 'bottling' arrack to the appellants and others was questioned in the High Court of Karnataka and the order of the State Government was struck down on the ground that it was 'unlawful', 'arbitrary', 'capricious', 'in flagrant violation of the rule of law' and as 'shocking the judicial conscience'. Some of the persons, to whom the bottling contracts had been awarded by the Government, have preferred these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution. 2. By general concurrence of opinion since days of yore, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor has always been considered to be a dangerous and obnoxious trade requiring the strictest vigilance and supervision and even prohibition. It is now firmly established that the Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2006]133CompCas190(Kar); ILR2005KAR5881; 2005(6)KarLJ615; [2006]66SCL122(Kar)
N.K. Sodhi, C.J.1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 34 Company appeals filed by Mysore Sales International Limited -- a Government Company (for short, 'MSIL'), under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'), read with Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Company petitions filed by it Kecking winding up of the respondent-companies on the ground that they are unable to pay their debts. Since identical questions of law and Cad arise in all the appeals, these are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience the facts are being taken from OSA No. 18 of 2002 which arises out of Company Petition No. 32 of 1999 filed under Section 433(e) read with Section 434 of the Act for the winding up of United Mreweries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company'). Learned Counsels for the parties are agreed that the decision in this case will govern the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2596; 1998(5)KarLJ491
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of renewal of licence of excise in his premises by respondent 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner has claimed to be the owner of the premises and it is stated that the letter of no objection was given by him to the third respondent to obtain CL-2 licence to run liquor shop in the name of Maruthi Wine Depot and the licence was granted in 1985. A registered power of attorney was also executed in favour of the petitioner to run the business of Maruthi Wine Depot. There was no business carried on for the intervening period and on 6-1-1992 the petitioner has entered into an agreement with respondent 4 for running the shop for a period of four years. It is stated that the agreement dated 6-1-1992 came to an end in 1996 and therefore the respondents have no right to apply even for renewal of the licence, after that date. It is on the basis of the so-called conspiracy between respondents 3 and 4 licence is stated to have been gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR3153; 1993(4)KarLJ604
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these Writ Petitions the basic question pertains to the power of the State Government to fix the price of rectified spirit to be sold to the manufacturers of arrack. This question is sought to be projected by reference to several Rules made under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 ('the Act' for short).Petitioners primarily rely on the Decision of the Supreme Court in SYNTHETICS & CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. v. STATE OF UP. AND ORS., (hereinafter referred as the 'Second Synthetics case'). Rectified spirit is manufactured out of molasses by a process of fermentation. It is not fit for human consumption and it is not potable alcohol. Therefore, according to the petitioner it is not an 'intoxicant' or 'liquor' in the ordinary sense of the term. Rectified spirit is also called, industrial alcohol which is the raw material for the use in many chemical and drug industries. It is also a raw material in the manufacture of potable alcohol including arrack a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3141; 1998(3)KarLJ494
ORDER1. Can the Licensing Authority exercising powers under the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989, refuse a licence on the ground that the grant would offend the provision of any other statute in force? What is 'Entertainment' within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967? Should the term be interpreted ejusdem generis having regard to the Company it keeps in the said provision, or can the wide interpretation adopted by the Licensing Authority be accepted? These are some of the questions that fall for consideration in this bunch of petitions which assail the validity of orders passed by the Licensing Authority refusing to the petitioners licences to provide live music in their Bar and Restaurants, inter alia on the ground that live music is 'Entertainment' within the meaning of that expression in Rule 11 of the General Conditions Rules hence impermissible in a place where liquor is ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant251; ILR1990KAR101; 1990(1)KarLJ18
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners before us include, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retail vendors, importers, consumers etc., of liquors. They assert that they are affected by the enforcement of certain Rules, made under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (referred as 'the Act', hereinafter). The Rules, under challenge are:--(1) Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Amendment Rules, 1989; (2) Karnataka Excise (Brewery) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; (3) Karnataka Excise (Manufacture of Wine from Grapes) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; (4) Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; and (5) Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1989. 2. The main attack is against the provisions now made for licencing of a sole distributor, which is to be a Government owned or controlled company as may be specified by the Stale Government. The relevant Rule is introduced by substituting clause (11) to Rule 3 by the Karnataka E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2169; 1999(5)KarLJ392
1. This writ appeal is filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 2-AA of the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter for short, referred to as the 'rules') and dismissing the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of liquor in the State of Goa. The appellant is importing liquor into the State of Karnataka for supply to Mysore Sales International Limited (MSIL). The aforesaid rules provide for levying of fee for import of liquor into State of Karnataka by the manufacturers from other States. The appellant challenged the said rule contending that the local manufacturers are not charged with any such fee or tax whereas only manufacturers from other States who are importing liquor are only charged with such fee. By such charging, the liquor manufactured by them in other States has to be sold in Karnataka at a price higher than the liquor being sold by the manu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. In Writ Petition No. 15834/2007 c/w Writ Petition Nos. 10264/2007, 10468/2007, 10172/2007, 9798/2007, 10086/2007, 9954/2007 and 10139/2007, petitioners are assailing the notifications issued a day prior to the commencement of the Excise year 2007-2008 in doubling the license fee to the holders of various kinds of liquor licenses. who are the distributors and retailers of Indian and foreign liquors.2. The main grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is. in violation of the procedure provided under Section 71 of the Karnataka Excise Act and also Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules of 1968, a draft notification was issued on 2^.05:2007 proposing to amend the rules for enhancement of license fee and, final notification was issued on 29.06.2007. According to them, its per the mandate under Section 71 of the Act, every rule has to be amended in accordance with law by laying the draft rules before both the houses of legislature and after fo...
Tag this Judgment!